Author | Thread |
|
01/05/2007 02:09:51 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Answer me this, on a simple level (above quantum), in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that. |
Are the English cricket team involved ? Because they seem to be able to astound even a pessimistic world view, when it comes to the action and reaction of balls.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:13:46.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:11:29 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that. |
The universe isn't an isolated experiment now is it? Eliminating all the other variables like wind, gravity, and quantum fluctuations eliminates the number of possible outcomes, so your example is invalid. |
Ha, that's such bullshit Shannon. Are you now telling me that Science cannot devise any reproducible experiments? Just answer the question.
Answer the question as a thought experiment if you need to. I'm just trying to make it simple. Does Ball B do any number of things when Ball A hits it?
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:13:13.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:12:05 PM · #403 |
Originally posted by jhonan: Originally posted by DrAchoo: John, there is nothing in the study of physics I am aware of that implies that there are an infinite number of possible "settings" for the big bang that result in a universe that can support life. You'll have to point something out to me. |
Maths. How many ways are there of arranging the atoms in the Universe? - And what if you added one or took one away at the beginning? And how many different states of energy existed at the moment of the Big Bang. There could be an infinite number of 'working' universes formed, but 36 trillion of them had an extra hydrogen atom somewhere spinning in a different direction to the others. |
Or the effects of varying any one of the currently accepted universal constants (gravitation effect, electron pull all that sort of stuff) I seem to remember some thought experiments on what happens when you tweak things like electron charge and the like. What's possible or not changes.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:15:32 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon - I am baffled how you think that A can lead to B,C,D,E... in the physical world we live in. Answer me this, on a simple level (above quantum), in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that. |
But you are trying to pull the standard classical world view twist of collapsing a wave equation. Schroedinger and all that have been here for a while, along with their pets.
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:15:46.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:15:33 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by jhonan: [quote=DrAchoo] John, there is nothing in the study of physics I am aware of that implies that there are an infinite number of possible "settings" for the big bang that result in a universe that can support life. You'll have to point something out to me. |
Maths. How many ways are there of arranging the atoms in the Universe? - And what if you added one or took one away at the beginning? And how many different states of energy existed at the moment of the Big Bang. There could be an infinite number of 'working' universes formed, but 36 trillion of them had an extra hydrogen atom somewhere spinning in a different direction to the others. |
The number of ways to arrange the atoms in the universe is not infinite. It's just really, really large. Wouldn't you agree?
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:16:08.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:16:32 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by jhonan: "I'll give them a few things to think about, I'll send down a representative or two to let them know I really do exist and that I want to be loved. Hey, I'm not cheating, I'm not *really* revealing myself, just passing on some words of wisdom."
"And if they love me then....errr... they can join me in Heaven when they die. If not, they can burn in Hell for eternity. That should get them worried. Easier than selling life insurance." |
Hmmm - are you anthropomorphosising a deity?
All of this remains sheer speculation: you might as well start believing in the teapot version sooner rather than later (or at least let me teach your kids about Him). Don't you want to avoid sitting in the boiling kettle of eternal damnation forevermore?
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:18:17 PM · #407 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: The number of ways to arrange the atoms in the universe is not infinite. It's just really, really large. Wouldn't you agree? |
It depends on if you presume an infinite universe, or not. If the universe has boundaries, then there's only a finite set of possible states for any given instant. That doesn't mean there aren't an infinite number of finite universes though.
If you presume an infinite sized universe, then the number of ways to arrange the atoms would be infinite too.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:18:56 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by RonB: Matthew, did you even LOOK at the link I provided? | Yes - apologies if I sounded ungrateful - it is just that I recall the figures being quite pronounced (moreso than reflected by that study).
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:19:45 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Ha, that's such bullshit Shannon. Are you now telling me that Science cannot devise any reproducible experiments? Just answer the question. |
I hate to rain on this parade, but the answer is that no two experiments will every yield the same exact results. Take your example. Two balls hitting each other without any outside influence. Even if we could devise that experiment, which we can't, the result of the contact is not precisely deterministic. Why? Because the transfer of energy from one ball to the other happens at the sub-atomic (i.e., quantum) level. When one object hits another, the "hitting" is mostly a transfer of electro-magnetic energy in the form of electron fields on one surface repelling the electron field on the other surface. This is governed by quantum mechanics. We can observe the results of many tests, and get results from each test that are very close to each other, but they are never going to be the same, and we are never going to be able to precisely predict the results. |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:21:05 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon - I am baffled how you think that A can lead to B,C,D,E... in the physical world we live in. Answer me this, on a simple level (above quantum), in an isolated experiment if Ball A hits Ball B with a predetermined angle and velocity, can Ball B do anything but react in a single way? Just answer that. |
But you are trying to pull the standard classical world view twist of collapsing a wave equation. Schroedinger and all that have been here for a while, along with their pets. |
Wrong. I am pointing out that we understand physics as action and reaction. Quantum effects tend to even out even on an atomic level and become less important. (As an aside, I'm not saying there can be no quantum effects, but they represent chaos and so are not helpful to the materialist's argument). The materialist understands there is action and reaction. A determines B. The real world is a greatly complex interaction of these "A to B" events, but IF we were somehow smart enough to know all of them, we could predict the future (except for the input of quantum chaos). Standard physics does not allow that given condition A you can get result B,C,D, or E UNLESS you add additional input.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:21:18 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by RonB: discredit a bogus claim |
I thought I'd made a vague assertion of something I heard. I doubt it could rise to the level of a bogus claim, certainly I don't think it was necessary to bother to discredit something that said 'people in general seem to believe in god' Particularly not to the point of dragging the conversation down to the typically political nonsense that's usually passes for discussion in these rant threads. Moving on... |
Gordon, my apologies if you think that I meant that your claim was bogus. I did not mean that. You stated quite clearly that what you were stating was something you "remember", and although your memory might be faulty, your statement was true - it IS what you remember.
What I was trying to say is that it is likely that your "memory" was based on one or more articles that quoted the results of a poll conducted by Sigma Xi - but that no such poll can be found - ergo, such claims are bogus. FWIW, I remembered the same figures as you, but I try to refrain from posting references that I cannot corroborate. It was in attempting to do so that I found that I could not find the actual Sigma Xi poll results ( and I don't trust claims in articles that cannot cite actual sources ). |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:23:45 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by eqsite: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Ha, that's such bullshit Shannon. Are you now telling me that Science cannot devise any reproducible experiments? Just answer the question. |
I hate to rain on this parade, but the answer is that no two experiments will every yield the same exact results. Take your example. Two balls hitting each other without any outside influence. Even if we could devise that experiment, which we can't, the result of the contact is not precisely deterministic. Why? Because the transfer of energy from one ball to the other happens at the sub-atomic (i.e., quantum) level. When one object hits another, the "hitting" is mostly a transfer of electro-magnetic energy in the form of electron fields on one surface repelling the electron field on the other surface. This is governed by quantum mechanics. We can observe the results of many tests, and get results from each test that are very close to each other, but they are never going to be the same, and we are never going to be able to precisely predict the results. |
Well, would you characterize this quantum effect in any way as "choice"? If you wouldn't, then Shannon is just trying to confuse things again. Personally I agree with you and fully understand there are quantum effects in the world. However, they only lead to randomness not choice.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:23:54 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Gordon - I'd like to see this Hawking bit. Can you provide me with some link or something? |
Which bit is that ? His views on God tends to permeate his best selling book. That'd be the best selling but least read best seller in history, probably. Lots of people own it. Fewer seem to have read it. A Brief History of Time |
Whoops, I think it was Matthew that gave me the bit about Hawking figuring that there was a 98% chance of the big bang doing something or other... |
Actually I think I remember that from the same book. But it's been a long time since I pretended to understand or even read it. |
I cannot remember exactly - but was reminded of it in the wiki on Anthropic Principle that you directed Charlene to!
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:27:43 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It depends on if you presume an infinite universe, or not. If the universe has boundaries, then there's only a finite set of possible states for any given instant. That doesn't mean there aren't an infinite number of finite universes though.
If you presume an infinite sized universe, then the number of ways to arrange the atoms would be infinite too. |
Or - whether the finite universe is infinitely divisible (along the lines of Zeno's paradox), in which case there are infinite locations within it.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:28:17 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Well, would you characterize this quantum effect in any way as "choice"? If you wouldn't, then Shannon is just trying to confuse things again. Personally I agree with you and fully understand there are quantum effects in the world. However, they only lead to randomness not choice. |
Ahh, well, I don't really have anything productive to add to that part of the conversation. I believe in choice, and I believe that it results from our thoughts (or call it a soul if you like) that are rooted in the quantum uncertainty inherent in our nervous system. But, I also believe that as soon as you start trying to apply logic to proving or disproving god or try to push scientific thought beyond what it is currently capable of explaining, you are involved in as much folly as someone trying to explain physics through scripture. |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:28:50 PM · #416 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Does Ball B do any number of things when Ball A hits it? |
A bogus question demands a bogus answer... the first time, no. The second time no, but two electrons line up just right and begin to skew the results ever so slightly. The 233,595,990,223th time, a cosmic ray from a supernova nails ball A with 1^18 eV of energy. The 20,156,466,724,563,448,023,545th time, ball B shatters from age. ;-P |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:32:17 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by eqsite: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Well, would you characterize this quantum effect in any way as "choice"? If you wouldn't, then Shannon is just trying to confuse things again. Personally I agree with you and fully understand there are quantum effects in the world. However, they only lead to randomness not choice. |
Ahh, well, I don't really have anything productive to add to that part of the conversation. I believe in choice, and I believe that it results from our thoughts (or call it a soul if you like) that are rooted in the quantum uncertainty inherent in our nervous system. But, I also believe that as soon as you start trying to apply logic to proving or disproving god or try to push scientific thought beyond what it is currently capable of explaining, you are involved in as much folly as someone trying to explain physics through scripture. |
Well, I'm not necessarily trying to prove God at this point, just the futility of Materialism.
I'm interested in knowing more about how you propose that quantum uncertainty lead to organized thoughts and then choices? I've heard people say this before, but I've never understood the logic in thinking random chaos is behind organization. I'll expand a bit. We generally make choices in our self-interest (so in general our choices are directed at a purpose). How can quantum foam lead to directed action?
BTW, Shannon, I'm giving up on you. You are just pushing my buttons now. I need to count to ten and step away from the keyboard... :)
Message edited by author 2007-01-05 14:34:54.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:33:20 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Would you characterize this quantum effect in any way as "choice"? |
Of course not, but a quantum effect over billions of years can apparently initiate a series of events that lead to the development of a brain capable of making a choice. |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:35:14 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by scalvert: The 233,595,990,223th time, a cosmic ray from a supernova nails ball A with 1^18 eV of energy. |
and if that seems silly, I'll just point out that many apparently random failures in computers which should be almost entirely deterministic (we design them to be, after all) are often attributable to cosmic rays flipping a bit, so it isn't that hypothetical an issue. To the point that one decision on one day could become another, on another day, just due to that one particle.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:37:38 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: BTW, Shannon, I'm giving up on you. You are just pushing my buttons now. |
Were any of my examples impossible even in a controlled environment? They may be unlikely for any given event, but so is the chance that your location will be struck by lightning during the next storm. Would you be willing to bet that your location will not be struck by lightning over the next billion years? |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:38:51 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Would you characterize this quantum effect in any way as "choice"? |
Of course not, but a quantum effect over billions of years can apparently initiate a series of events that lead to the development of a brain capable of making a choice. |
If that isn't a statement made on faith, I'm not sure what is. Welcome to the club.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:39:18 PM · #422 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Well, I'm not necessarily trying to prove God at this point, just the futility of Materialism.
I'm interested in knowing more about how you propose that quantum uncertainty lead to organized thoughts and then choices? I've heard people say this before, but I've never understood the logic in thinking random chaos is behind organization.
BTW, Shannon, I'm giving up on you. You are just pushing my buttons now. I need to count to ten and step away from the keyboard... :) |
Honestly, I don't have any proposition of how that might work (I would have to be much smarter). I simply said that's what I believe. Ultimately, I think belief is what these types of conversations come down to. I believe in science and I think there are many answers that it will yet uncover. I believe that thought and self-determination are probably rooted in quantum mechanics. But I certainly can't know this. And if someone chooses to believe otherwise, that's their perogative and I respect that, so long as that respect is a two-way street (and I am not implying that it is not in your case). |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:40:30 PM · #423 |
Here's an excerpt from a future wikipedia (about 10,000 AD)...
Anthropologists uncovered an 8,000 year old thread during an internet excavation. Evidence indicates a unique species that actually devolved into single-celled organisms during the course of the thread which lasted over a thousand years - a period now known as the "Disturbing Passage" era. |
|
|
01/05/2007 02:43:07 PM · #424 |
So everybody has simply pointed out that the universe may not act in a classically deterministic way. We now have an overlay of quantum chaos. The supersmart person who knows the initial settings can only predict events until the next quantum effect. At that point he must recalculate everything and go from there (until the next event and so on).
None of this allows for Free Will. So let us go back to my original argument and forget all this quantum stuff.
A) My senses tell me I have control of my actions.
B) If this is illusion, how can I trust anything my senses tell me?
Perhaps I'll copy a bit of Mere Christianity. CS Lewis makes a similar argument, although he uses Moral Law instead of Free Will. He is always more eloquent than I am.
|
|
|
01/05/2007 02:43:10 PM · #425 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: If that isn't a statement made on faith, I'm not sure what is. Welcome to the club. |
One can have faith without it being religious, no? I choose to put my faith in science, even knowing that it is incomplete and often wrong. I have only performed a few basic scientific experiments in college, so most everything that I take from science I have to take on faith. But it is the transparency of science that appeals to me and gives me faith. |
|